In a move that will likely only further confuse the situation surrounding Vista Service Pack 1, Microsoft has posted for public download two updates that were released to beta testers last month. The patches improve Vista performance and reliability, along with the operating system's compatibility with drivers and hardware. Some of the changes include better file copy performance, faster boot times, improved compatibility with newer graphics cards, and better performance in games with advanced visuals.

although I'm still unsure how 6 years is really rushing out a product.

Vista was not developed in 6 years. It began 2 years after XP SP2 was released, and at one point the whole project was restarted (they ctrl+alt+del the project!)

I originally wanted to post a reply mocking Vista for taking so long to develop yet still end up released unfinished with glaring bugs. Then I started searching for the actual amount of time it took to develop Vista. From what I've found, it seems most of the work put into Vista happened in the last 2 years (2005 - 2007).

Well shoot. That puts the remark "Linux isn't ready for the Desktop" in a whole different light.

And you're right, to think that they restarted from scratch would be naive. I don't think they tossed code out the window (bad pun) I would think it's more likely the architects and managers said "back to the drawing board."

Windows Vista development was never "restarted", they just enacted an audit of all the code and made tighter requirements on the quality of the code.

Are you going to tell me what an open-source development model does not have these issues? They are not exclusive to a closed source model, that's fud.

There is no one issue which plagued the development of issues. It's a bunch of problems which stacked ontop of each other to complicate things. Some of these include the radical changes proposed, a shaky foundation, and some ambitious goals.

Windows Vista used the Windows Server 2003 kernel, that is not tied down to the Server line at all. This is simply an updated build of the NT Kernel which includes various enhancements in both performance and security.

Windows Vista introduces a bunch of new platforms and fresh code, it's obvious it will have performance issues at first as with any major changes.

I'm not going to say an open development model does not have it's advantages. Peer reviewed code has it's perks. However, what I am trying to say is that a closed-source model does not damn the project.

Windows Vista performs alright (albiet the Harddrive transfers, which were fixed above). It's a flexible Operating System with the option to turn off features you do not need and fine tune it to your needs.

It's no where near the flexbility, of say Linux but it's enough for what I would call an "everyday" PC user.

"What you describe is the failure of having a closed-source development model nothing more, and what it brings with it more than you being able to see the code."

I think what you actually mean is that it is the failure of MS's development model, not closed source. If I had a buck for every Open Source project that failed, I'd never have to work again, The Open Source development model is not perfect either, and in a project as large as Vista, MS lost control of it. I don't think you can blame it on closed source, just blame it on MS, it's more realistic, and closer to the truth.